2009 D e c i sion s O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit 7-6-2009 

# P atrick T ou s s aint v . D a vid Go o d P r e c e de nt i al or N on-P r e c e de nt i al : N on-P r e c e de nt i al D ocke t N o . 08-3751

F o l low thi s a nd a dd it ion al work s at : http://d i git alc ommon s .l a w . vi l l a nova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2009

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou ght t o you for f r e e a nd ope n a c c e s s b y the O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit at V i l l a nova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. It h as be e n a c c ept e d for inclusion in 2009 D e c i sion s b y a n author i z e d a dmini s tr at or of V i l l a nova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. F or mor e inform at ion, p le as e c ont a ct Be n j amin . C arl s on@l a

w . vi l l a nova . e du . Re c omme nde d C it at ion " P atr ick T ous s aint v . D a vid Good " (2009). 2009 D e cisio n s . P ape r 1068. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi l l a nova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2009/1068AL D- 2 2 6 NOT P RE CE DE NT I AL UN I TED STATES CO UR T OF A PP EALS F O R T H E T H IR D C IR C U IT

___________ N o. 08- 3751

___________ PATRI CK TOU SS AI NT, A ppel l ant v . DAVI D GOOD ; J E F F RE Y B E AR D, P h . D; M AR L E NE S T E WART ; NOR A HR UB OC HAK; L T . P I RO Z Z OL A; S GT . GR E E N; SGT. M ATTH EW S; SGT. VI TALE

____________________________________ O n A p p ea l from the U n it ed S tat es D istri ct C o u rt f o r th e W e ste rn D istric t o f P e n n sy lv a n ia ( D . C . C i vi l N o. 05- cv- 00443) D i s t r i ctJ udge: H onor abl e K i m R . G i bs on

____________________________________ S u b mi t t e d f

o rP o s s i b l e Di s mi s s a l P u r s u a n tt o 2 8 U. S . C. § 1 9 1 5 ( e ) ( 2 ) ( B) o r S u m m a ry A c tio n P u rs u a n t to T h ir d C ir c u it L A R 2 7 .4 a n d I.O .P . 1 0 .6 J une 25, 2009 B efor e: SL O V I T E R , FU E N T E S and J O R D A N , C i r cui tJ udges

( O pi ni on fi l ed: J ul y6, 2009)

_________ OP I NI ON

_________ P E R C UR I AM P a tr ic k T o u s s a in t f

ile d , pro se , an ac t i on under42 U . S. C . § 1983, al l egi ng vi ol at i ons of hi s ci vi l r i ght s bys ever al pr i s on offi ci al s and empl oy ees of the D epart m ent2

o f Co r r e c t i o n s . F o rt h e r e a s o n s t h a tf o l l o w, we wi l l s u mma r i l ya f f i r m. I . B ackgr ound T ous s ai nt , a pr i s oneri ncar cer at ed att he St at e C or r ect i onal I ns t i tut i on atC r es s on, f ile d a c o m p la in t o n D e c e m b e r 2 0 , 2 0 0 5 , in th e W e s te rn D is tr ic t C o u rt o f P e n n s y lv a n ia . In hi s ori ginal com plai nt he al l eged t hat D efen dan t s: (1) den i ed h i m access t o the cou rt s; ( 2) t or tur ed hi m byfor ci ng hi m t o s har e a c el l w i t h i nm at es w i t h w hom he w as noton good t erm s and byw hom he fe l tt hr eat ened; and ( 3) r et al i at ed aga i ns thi m forfi l i ng gri evan ces. D efen dan t s fi l ed a m oti on t o d i sm i ss, w hich the D i stri ctC ou rtt reat ed as a m o tio n f o r s u m m a ry ju d g m e n t a n d g ra n te d . T o u s s a in t a p p e a le d , a n d w e v a c a te d in p a rt a n d re m a n d e d f o r f u rt h e r p ro c e e d in g s . A l t hough w e agr eed w i t h t he D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s anal y s i s on T ous s ai nt ’ s acc es s - t o- cour t s and t or tur e cl ai m s , w e hel d t hatt he D i s t r i ctC our ts houl d nothave gr ant ed s um m aryj udgm ent o n th e re ta lia tio n c la im b e c a u s e th e D e f e n d a n ts h a d n o t s o u g h t ju d g m e n t a s to th a t c la im . O n re m a n d , the p a rties w e re o rd e re d to f ile c ro ss -m o tio n s f

o r su m m a ryju d g m e n t so lely o n th e re talia tio n c laim . D e f e n d a n ts f iled a m o tio n f

o r su m m a ryju d g m e n t. T o u ss a in t d id notfi l e anyoppos i t i on. T he M agi s t r at e J udge r ecomm ended gr ant i ng t he mot i on i n favor of the D efe ndant s . See Fed. R . C i v. P. 56( e) ( 2) . T he D i s tr i ctC our tadopt ed the M a g is tr a te ’s J u d g e ’s re p o rt . T o u s s a in t tim e ly ap p e a le d . II. A n a ly sis W e h av e a p p ell ate jurisdicti o n p u rsua n t t o 2 8 U . S . C . § 1 2 9 1 . W e e x erc ise p lena ry3

r evi ew overa D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s gr antof s um m aryj udgm entand appl yt he s ame t es tappl i ed b ythe D istri ct C o u rt . S alda n a v . K m art C o rp., 2 6 0 F . 3 d 2 2 8 , 2 3 1 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 1 ). E n try of s um m aryj udgm enti s appr opr i at e w hen the pl eadi ngs , di s coverym at er i al s and a f f id a v its sh o w th a t th e re is n o g e n u in e iss u e a s to a n ym a ter ial f a c t an d th e m o v in g p a rty i s ent i t l ed t o j udgm entas a mat t erof l aw . Fed. R . C i v. P. 56( c) ; s ee a l s o C el ot ex C orp. v. C atr et t , 477 U . S. 317, 322 ( 1986) . W hen a movi ng par t ydemonst r at es t he abs ence of a genui ne i s s ue of mat er i al fac t , t he nonmovi ng par t ym us tgo bey ond t he pl eadi ngs and po i ntt o “ s pe c i fi c fa c t s s ho w i ng t ha tt he r e i s a ge nu i ne i s s ue fo rt r i a l . ” Fe d. R. Ci v. P. 56( e) . I f thatdoes nothappen, t he movi ng par t yi s ent i t l ed t o a j udgm entas a mat t erof l aw . C el ot ex C orp. , 477 at323. U nderFed. R . C i v. P. 56( b) a def endi ng par t y“may mo v e [ f o rs u mma r yj u d g me n t ] a ta n yt i me . . . o n a l l o rp a r to f t h e c l a i m. T o u ss a in t cla im s th a t w e sh o u ld g ra n t h im re lief b e c a u se d e f

e n se c o u n se l f

a iled to pr oper l yar gue the r et al i at i on cl ai m w hen the ca s e w as fi r s ti n t he D i s t r i ctC our tand there fo re so m eh o w w aive d the righ t t o d ef en d the c lai m . In o u r prior o p inion , h o w ev er, w e s peci fi cal l yr emanded forfur t herpr ocee di ngs as t o t hi s cl ai m . T ous s ai ntv. G ood, N o. 06- 4638, s l i p op. at5- 6 ( 3r d C i r . M ay1, 2008) . O n r emand, t he D i s t r i ctC our tor der ed the p arti es to fil e c ross -m o ti o n s fo r sum m aryjud g m en t. In d o ing so , the D istri ct C o u rt act ed appr opr i at el y , and cons i s t ent l yw i t h ourm andat e, t o r es ol ve Touss ai nt ’ s r et al i at i on c laim . W e p re v io u slyh e ld th a t “th e M a g istra te J u d g e c re d ited th e d e f e n d a n ts w ith m eet i ng t he s um m aryj udgm ents t andar d on a cl ai m agai ns tw hi ch theydi d not4

sp e c if ica llyd e f

e n d , an d re g a rd in g w h ich T o u ss a in t m ig h t n o t h a v e b e e n o n n o tice to argue. ” T ou ssai nt v. G oo d, N o. 06 -4638 , sl i p o p. at6. B yorderi ng part i es t o fil e cross m ot i ons , t he D i s t r i ctC our tw as gi vi ng bot h par t i es an oppor tuni t yt o ar gue the mer i t s of th e re ta lia tio n c la im . T ou ssai nt al l eged t hat the D efen dan t s r et al i at ed ag ai nsthim byi ssui ng fal se d isc ip lin a ryre p o rts f

o r w h ich h e w a s s a n c tio n e d , in r e sp o n se to h is u se o f th e in m a te gri evan ce sy st em . T o p revai l on a cl ai m for r et al i at i on bypri son o ffi ci al s, a plai nti ff m ust s h o w t h a t : ( 1 ) h e e n g a g e d i n c o n s t i tu t i o n a l l yp r o t e c t e d c o n d u c t ; ( 2 ) h e s u f f e r e d s o me “adv ers e act i on ” bypri son o ffi ci al s; and (3) his exerci se of a co nst i tuti on al ri gh tw as a s ubs t ant i al orm ot i vat i ng fac t ori n t he adve r s e ac t i on. R aus erv. H or n, 241 F. 3d 330, 333- 34 ( 3d C i r . 2001) . “[P] r i s on offi ci al s m ays t i l l pr evai l bypr ovi ng t hatt heyw oul d have m ade the s ame deci s i on abs entt he pr ot ect ed conduc tforr eas ons r eas onabl yr el at ed t o a le g itim a te p e n o lo g ic a l in te re s t.” Id . a t 3 3 4 . T ous s ai ntal l eged thatcorr ect i onal offi cer s i s s ued mi s conductr epor t s i n r et al i at i on f o r g rie v a n c e s h e f

iled a b o u t h is h o u sin g situ a tio n . In se e k in g su m m a ryju d g m e n t, D efe ndant s pr ovi ded evi dence of thr ee mi s conduct s agai ns tT ous s ai nt : on A ugus t22, 2005, O ct ober16, 2005, and N ovember14, 2005. I n addi t i on, t heypr ovi ded copi es of tw o g ri e v a n c e s f

ile d b yT o u s s a in t: o n A u g u s t 2 2 , 2 0 0 5 a n d O c to b e r 1 4 , 2 0 0 5 . 

### Exc e pt pos s ibl y for the t i mi ng, Tous s a i nt

fa i l e d t o pr offe r

e vi de nc e that

hi s fi l i ng o f a g riev an ce w as a “sub stantial o r m o tiv atin g f acto r” inany

o f th e three d ecisio n s toD efe ndant s poi ntoutt hatt he s ubs t ance of the gr i evanc e fi l ed on A ugus t22, 2005, 1 r evea l s t hati tm us thave be en fi l ed after th e m is c o n d u c t r e p o rt o f th e s a m e d a te . T her efor e, t he A ugus tm i s conductr epor tcoul d nothave be en r et al i at or yas t o t he fi r s tof T o u s s a in t’ s g ri e v a n c e s . 5 

### issu e h im a misco n du ct. Eve n a s s umi ng that Tous s a i nt ’ s e vi de nc e e s t abl i s he d age nui ne 1 

### i s s ue a s t o that , De fe ndant s pr offe r e d e vi de nc e that the y woul d have i s s ue d the misco n du ct rep o rts any

w ay , f o r leg itim ate, p en o lo g ical reaso n s. In d eed , D ef en d ants’ ev id en ce— in clu d in g th e misco n du ct rep o rts, writtenstatem ents b y T o u ssaint, an dh is gri e vanc e s —e s t abl i s he d that To us s a i nt

wa s i s s ue d c i t at i on s a s a r e s po ns e t o h i s own affirm ative andoutr ageous behavior. The Au gu st 22 , 200 5, ci tati oncam e a fter Tous s a i nt , de s pi t e s i gni ng an a gr e e m e nt t o do s o, r e pe at e dl y

r e fus e d t o m ove fr om

one cell to an o th er (at a tim e wh ena sig n if icant num b er o f p riso n ers w ere o ut o f

th eir cells). Th e Oct ob er

16 , 200 5, mis conduct occ urre d after To ussa int ( a) went to a c orre ctional o f f icer’s o f f ice an dann o un cedth at h e w o u ldn o t g o b ackto h is cell an d(b ) return edto hi s c e l land be gan r e m ovi ng hi s pr ope rty fr om i t . Fi na l l y , the Nove m

be r 14, 2005, c i t at i on wa s i s s ue d a ft e r

Tous s a i nt

onc e a ga i n a

ppr oa c he d an offi c e r

t o announc e that

he w o u ldn o t returnto h is cell. Beca use Tou ss ai nt po inte d to n othing un dermining the Defend ants ’ e vidence, se e F ed . R . C iv . P . 5 6 (e), h e f ailedto estab lisha g enu in e issu e as to wh eth er th e D ef en d ants wo uld h ave i ss ued the mis conduct r eports re gardle ss of his fil ing o f g ri evances . See

### Raus e r , 241 F. 3d at 334. Ac c or di ngl y , we m us t , and wi l l , a ffi rm

the judgm e nt

of the D istrict C o urt.

6